Origin of the Basques

@Angela

I think the one who does not understand anything about the impact of the Indo-Europeans in Iberia is you and I don't think you understand the impact of the Indo-Europeans in Etruria either. In the first case, because the genetic continuity in Iberia is absolutely demonstrated from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age. The uniparental markers are the same (males R1b-P312/Df27). To say that these men changed their language because of their women seems to me a simplistic and unscientific explanation. Genetic continuity is the only way to demonstrate which language a culture spoke in prehistoric times. In Iberia we are fortunate to be able to demonstrate that the Iberians/Basques and Tartessians (all of them overwhelmingly P312) did not speak Indo-European languages in the Iron Age but Iberian/Basque and Tartessian. In other words the BB culture did not speak an Indo-European language. In order to prove that IE was spoken in the steppes and that R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 brought those languages to mainland europe you need to prove the genetic continuity between the Yamnaya culture (or any other steppe culture) and the BB culture, and you know what? so far nobody has been able to prove it. When you do it then we all will have to accept that R1b-P312 (and the BB culture) spoke an IE language, but meanwhile the only thing they have been able to demonstrate is the Z2013 and R1a migration to mainland Europe, and you know what? neither of them reached western europe and they have never been found in the BB culture.
 
Regarding the Etruscans I am glad to know that you know a lot of uniparental markers, I guess you won't mind sharing those data with us. Regarding the male markers I only know of one (R474 HapY-J2b2a-L283), which I believe has so far only been found in Croatia and Sardinia, which casts doubt on the origin of the Etruscans in the Italian peninsula. However, I suppose that when some geneticist will be interested in analyzing well the bronze and iron age in Italy, it will be demonstrated that the Etruscans have their origin in the Northern Italian BBs. And then we will find the same case that in Iberia, that is to say men R1b-P312 that did not speak a language IE. Too much coincidence, isn't it?. Although I guess your explanation will be the same as for Iberia, i.e. those men simply adopted the language of their women.
 
I agree with you, I don't debate issues where the genetic data is so astoundingly clear, but if you are truly interested in the genetic history of Iberia, I recommend you to read this recently published doctoral thesis. You will certainly learn something more about R1b-P312, the Basques and the rest of Spaniards.

+ New insights in the paternal genetic landscape of southwestern Europe: Dissection of haplogroup R1b-M269 and forensic applications-P.Villaescusa
 
@Angela

Of course I don't mind being genetically similar to the Sardinians, first because of the obvious historical connections of that island first with the crown of Aragon and then with the Spanish Monarchy, and secondly because I know the island and I know that its inhabitants are friendly and welcoming (at least with the Spaniards).

You don't seem to want to understand what I have said about Sardinia and its relationship with Iberia/Basques- I have said twice that despite sharing similar percentages of EEF, and the more than evident relationships since the Neolithic period, their genetic histories are very different. This is so because of the excessive geographic isolation of both Basques and Sardinians throughout history. This has made that in relation to the uniparental markers Sardinia and Iberia are as similar as an egg to a chestnut and this despite the fact that Chalcolithic migrations from Iberia have been demonstrated (among them the BB culture). Then to say that we southern Europeans are modified Sardinians seems inappropriate to me.
 
Regarding the Etruscans I am glad to know that you know a lot of uniparental markers, I guess you won't mind sharing those data with us. Regarding the male markers I only know of one (R474 HapY-J2b2a-L283), which I believe has so far only been found in Croatia and Sardinia, which casts doubt on the origin of the Etruscans in the Italian peninsula. However, I suppose that when some geneticist will be interested in analyzing well the bronze and iron age in Italy, it will be demonstrated that the Etruscans have their origin in the Northern Italian BBs. And then we will find the same case that in Iberia, that is to say men R1b-P312 that did not speak a language IE. Too much coincidence, isn't it?. Although I guess your explanation will be the same as for Iberia, i.e. those men simply adopted the language of their women.


There is only one thing that complicates the question of the origins of the Etruscans: the lack of knowledge of the many studies dedicated to the subject, especially those of archaeology.

The presence of J2b2a-L283 among the Etruscans does not complicate anything and doesn't cast any doubt, the one found among the Etruscans is decidedly more related to the one found earlier in Croatia than to the ones found in the Nuragics, and archaeologists for years have argued that between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age in Etruria arrived migrations of male "warriors" from Middle-Danube Urnfield culture (from an area ranging from the northern Balkans to the Danubian plain).

To be clear, these who arrive from Middle-Danube Urnfield culture are not the Etruscans, which is widely shown to have formed in Italy, but they are simply the migrations of a component, probably of IE languages, assimilated by the people who already lived in Etruria, and these newcomers contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans.

It is methodologically wrong to trace an Iron Age ethnos back to only a specific material culture from many hundreds of years earlier, such as the Bell Beaker, which there really was in Etruria, much more than we think.
 
I will say only one thing in response to the verbiage by Signor Gaska: MtDna counts too.

As to the rest, when I say I won't waste time arguing with people who want to ignore genetics I mean exactly what I say.
 
There is only one thing that complicates the question of the origins of the Etruscans: the lack of knowledge of the many studies dedicated to the subject, especially those of archaeology.

The presence of J2b2a-L283 among the Etruscans does not complicate anything and doesn't cast any doubt, the one found among the Etruscans is decidedly more related to the one found earlier in Croatia than to the ones found in the Nuragics, and archaeologists for years have argued that between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age in Etruria arrived migrations of male "warriors" from Middle-Danube Urnfield culture (from an area ranging from the northern Balkans to the Danubian plain).

To be clear, these who arrive from Middle-Danube Urnfield culture are not the Etruscans, which is widely shown to have formed in Italy, but they are simply the migrations of a component, probably of IE languages, assimilated by the people who already lived in Etruria, and these newcomers contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans.

It is methodologically wrong to trace an Iron Age ethnos back to only a specific material culture from many hundreds of years earlier, such as the Bell Beaker, which there really was in Etruria, much more than we think.

below is all the J2b2a-L283 and its descendents

 
below is all the J2b2a-L283 and its descendents

You find anything on Yfull.

There is one missing from ancient samples that has not been released yet (I think from Moldova or surrounding area, but I don't remember, however that is earlier than the one from northern Serbia, MOK15). Y-Full has done more updates and some formed ages and TMRCA may still not be in place.

L283 may have been in Europe as early as the Neolithic period or Late Neolithic period. But there were likely also later movements during the Bronze and Late Bronze Age, following a Balkan route.


https://yfull.com/tree/J-L283/
 
@Pax Augusta

Genetically describing a culture that lasted 700/800 years with only 5-10 genomes seems to me reckless, but we are already used to see prestigious geneticists jumping to conclusions in order to fulfill certain agendas. We need many more samples to draw definitive conclusions about the Etruscans. This is what I think about them with the data we have at our disposal.

1-Evidently they spoke a NON-Indo-European language

2- We only have a male marker and it comes from Illyria

3-Their mitochondrial markers seem typically western, although some of them have been found much earlier in the steppes and later in the BB culture.

4-They are practically identical to Latins (24-28% Yamnaya)

5-Very similar to the Iron Age Iberians and Northern Italians-Italian Chalcolithic has a strong Iberian signal and we have cases of Bbs in Parma with Iberian signal in its Autosomal DNA-It is not strange that the Etruscans were genetically similar to the Iberians.

6-it seems that the Etruscans are a mixture of local Eneolithic + Balkans + BBs-They have more Balkan mix than Latins

7- Obviously they were NOT Africans or Anatolians, nor Levantines despite some outlier data

8- Heirs of the Villanovan culture that comes from UrnField Culture

9-Descend from BBs (45-50%)

The Italian Bronze Age will demonstrate the genetic continuity between the BBs and the Etruscans and then the linguistic debate will become much more interesting. We know that

9039-CO (1.300 BC)-Olmo di Nogara-HapY-R1b-P312-L51-CTS6889 (xP311 xL52 xL151)-Mit Hap-V-I think this sample belongs to the Terramare culture
 
There is only one thing that complicates the question of the origins of the Etruscans: the lack of knowledge of the many studies dedicated to the subject, especially those of archaeology.

The presence of J2b2a-L283 among the Etruscans does not complicate anything and doesn't cast any doubt, the one found among the Etruscans is decidedly more related to the one found earlier in Croatia than to the ones found in the Nuragics, and archaeologists for years have argued that between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age in Etruria arrived migrations of male "warriors" from Middle-Danube Urnfield culture (from an area ranging from the northern Balkans to the Danubian plain).

To be clear, these who arrive from Middle-Danube Urnfield culture are not the Etruscans, which is widely shown to have formed in Italy, but they are simply the migrations of a component, probably of IE languages, assimilated by the people who already lived in Etruria, and these newcomers contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans.

It is methodologically wrong to trace an Iron Age ethnos back to only a specific material culture from many hundreds of years earlier, such as the Bell Beaker, which there really was in Etruria, much more than we think.

Here I absolutely disagree with you, because precisely what is methodologically correct is to relate archaeologically, genetically and culturally (also linguistically) the Iron Age cultures (of which we have accurate information thanks to classical sources) with the Bronze Age and Chalcolithic cultures. In Spain we know that all the Bronze Age cultures (Cogotas, Motillas, Argar, Atlantic and Mediterranean Bronze etc) are overwhelmingly R1b-Df27. All of them descend from the BB culture. And we also know that the Iberian peoples of the Iron Age are descended from these Bronze Age cultures, so we have no rational reason to think that these men and women changed their language. This is the genetic continuity I am talking about. I believe that in northern Italy the genetic continuity will be the same as in Iberia.

Iberia-Mediterranean coast

*GBVPK (2.380 BC)- Grotte Basse de la Vigne Perdue, Narbona-HapY-R1b1a/1b1a/1a2a/1-DF27-Z195-
*I3494 (1.836 BC)-Coveta del Frare, Valencia-Bronce Valenciano-HapY-R1b- DF27-ZZ12-Hap Mit-J1c1/b
*I1312d (1.782 BC)-Can Roqueta, Barcelona-Bronce Nordeste-HapY-R1b-Df27-Z195-Hap Mit-HV0@195
*I3397 (1.741 BC)-Lloma de Betxí, Valencia-Bronce Valenciano-HapY-R1b-Df27-Z195-Hap Mit-K1a2/b
*I4563 (1.600 AC)-Galls Carboners, Tarragona-HapY-R1b- Df27-Z195-Haplogrupo Mitocondrial-H1/H84
*I3324 (276 BC)-Puig de Sant Andreu, Gerona-Cultura Ibérica-Indiketes- HapY-R1b-DF27-Hap MitH1
*I3320 (200 BC)-Els Estrets-El Racó de la Rata, Castellón-Ilerkavones-HapY-R1b-Df27-Z225-Hap Mit-I1
*I8206 (200 BC)-Ampurias, Gerona-Cultura Ibérica-Indiketes-HapY-R1b-Df27-Z195-Hap Mit-H7a1

I think it is absolutely clear BB culture (DF27)>Mediterranean Bronze Age (Df27)>Iberian peoples (Indiketes, Ilerkavones, Layetanos, Basques.....Df27)- ergo the genetic and cultural continuity is enough to prove that the BB culture did not speak an IE language. The Etruscans will prove us right.
 
I will say only one thing in response to the verbiage by Signor Gaska: MtDna counts too.

As to the rest, when I say I won't waste time arguing with people who want to ignore genetics I mean exactly what I say.

@From Signor Gaska to Doña Angela-

You have opened this thread about the origin of the Basques and since I am Basque I suppose you won't mind if I give my opinion on what I think is correct and convenient.

Perhaps you could explain what you think of the Etruscan mitochondrial markers?

What are your genetic, linguistic or archeological arguments to say that the Iberians and the Etruscans changed their language for that of their women?. It will be interesting to hear your explanations in this regard.
 
The men didn't necessarily adopt the language of the women. They may not have hung arround. It was the children who adopted the language of their mothers.

it could be true but you need a double situation

1-That the fathers were foreigners
2-That the mothers were local women

However, in Iberia, the first documented R1b-P312-Df27s are

*EHU002 El Hundido (2.434 BC)-- HapY-R1b-P312-Mit-K1a4/a1-BB burial-Oval pit in the corridor of a dolmen-Male+45 years, 1,85 m, fetal position in right lateral decubitus and with NO-SE orientation-Grave goods- Ciempozuelos style vessel, copper dagger, V perforated button-
*EHU001/UE 750-El Hundido (2.413 BC)-HapY-R1b-L51-Mit-U5a1/b1-

This site is in Burgos (Castilian Plateau), very close to the ancestral home of the Basques, and the first thing we have to see who are the mothers of these men. The first of them has a typical Iberian Neolithic mitochondrial marker documented in the peninsula since 5.273 BC (Cova de la Sarga, Valencia), so evidently his mother was originally from Iberia, but the second man has a U5a1b1 marker, which has never been documented in Iberia previously. Moreover, it has its origin in the Maykop culture, Russia-Marinskaya5-MK5007-3.505 BC (Wang et al, 2.018) and then has been documented in other European BB sites (Berzingerode etc...).

Then, we can reason as follows

A- R1b-P312-Df27 were foreigners who crossed the Pyrenees, (some of them with their wives who also had their origin in the steppes)- So why would they or their children change their language, if their mothers should also speak an IE language? It does not make sense. For that you would need all the women to be of local origin.

B- R1b-P312-Df27 were Iberians who by exogamy took women in central Europe (CWC- who had a distant origin in the steppes). So why would Df27 change their language, if these women had to adapt to a new culture and when they also lived with other women of Iberian origin?

The argument that these men were foreigners (conquerors, traders, hunters, miners, explorers or whatever you want to call them) does not make much sense because;

1-They are buried in a Neolithic dolmen in the same place where there is a previous collective burial. It is strange that a conqueror knows those sacred sites and also instead of erasing the memory of his conquered enemies he buries himself next to them.

2. The grave goods that accompany them are absolutely Iberian (palmela points, V perforated buttons, copper daggers, wristguards and Ciempozuelos ceramic style that is exclusive of Iberia and the south of France). It seems strange that conquerors instead of imposing their cultural customs immediately adopted the culture of the conquered.

Common sense tells me that whatever the origin of these men and women, at least in Iberia they had no reason to change their language, ergo the BB culture never spoke an IE language and neither did R1b-P312/Df27-

Iberia is not the exception, all of southern France (Aquitaine, Occitania) spoke Iberian/Basque at the arrival of the Romans, while in the center and north Celtic languages were spoken. And in Italy, it turns out that the Etruscans (of whom we have hardly any data on their male markers) spoke a NON-IE language, and yet they were instrumental in the founding of Rome, which nevertheless spoke an IE language. I think that the issue of Indo-European languages in Western Europe must be related to the Iron Age, previously everyone would speak Neolithic languages related to Iberian/Tartessian/Etruscan etc...
 
Here I absolutely disagree with you, because precisely what is methodologically correct is to relate archaeologically, genetically and culturally (also linguistically) the Iron Age cultures (of which we have accurate information thanks to classical sources) with the Bronze Age and Chalcolithic cultures.

I'm not surprised that you disagree on this. What you mention is not an accepted method by many scholars, there is an ongoing debate. It's more a common belief very spread in the forums, and that was rehashed as a method indeed 30-40 years ago by geneticists (the same ones who then fed the myth that Sardinians and Basques were the same thing). Also the idea that classical sources always contain accurate information survives in the pseudo-scientific books but is rejected as a postulate by scholars.
 
I answer to some arguments by Gaska. If I write "Moesan says", it is not because I want to take God's place, but for practical purposes.

Gaska said :
post #7
NO, NO , NO, the rest of Iberia has hardly changed...][ The rest of the Iberian peninsula is very uniform genetically speaking (certainly much more than the Balkans, Italy or Greece) - We Basques are Iberians from the Iron Age descendants of the first Iberian BBs and the rest of Spaniards are like us, except for a small percentage of Romans and Moors in some regions…][... Of course, that means that Iberians (and Basques especially who have never spoken an Indo-European language) have never been Indo-European, neither we nor our ancestors R1b.P312. Forget the fairy tales they have been telling us for years...]


Moesan says: What an idyllic picture ! Don’t confuse BB Iberians with post-BB Iberians : not the same thing ; ancient Iberia was not so homogenous : if Neolithic saw some unity it was not so leveled, and Basques and some northern regions of Spain was already more isolated from the Mediterranean streams then ; and Southern and Eastern Iberia knew Helladic streams already since the 2500’s BC, without speaking of BB’s. We are not sure that Basque language was spoken allover today Basque country. Someones consider that Celtic language was spoken too in some of its areas. (I have no personal knowledge here, only maps here and there, but it could be important, speaking of male haplos and language)
Post#9
[… If you refer to the Iberian peoples that inhabited Iberia at the arrival of the Romans, they were not different from the Basques, they were exactly the same (both in their uniparental markers and in their autosomal composition), that is to say, the Basques are Iberians who have kept their language despite the conquest. If when you say Iberians, you mean the current Spaniards, it is true that some regions of Spain are very similar to the Basques (Castile, Aragon, and the entire Mediterranean coast) and that in some regions such as Galicia, Extremadura are somewhat different because of the Roman and Muslim conquest.
Moesan says :
Culturally, archeologically, anthropologically, genetically, there is no such unity at those dates, before Romans, even if it depends also on the scale (degree of focus) we choose for DNA. We only lack extend enough surveys about ancient DNA to show it (too much averages based on heterogenous groups, or too little groups knowing that since metal ages we find rather elite buryings, of weight concerning males haplos). More than 270 individual ancient DNA seems impressive but it isn’t so much at the Scale of Iberia on a relatively long span of time. And speaking of past we may not forget there has been some regional moves after Romans and later levelings (Reconquista and modern times) in comparisons with moderns. More than Rome and Muslim conquests have been at play.
That said I agree that the differences between basques and even the most different ancient Iberians are not so huge and doesn’t disprove a relative continuity compared to other regions of Europe.
[… As for "Indoeuropeans", I am fine with you (Angela) not wanting to debate, but you will understand that this explanation of R1b men from the steppes adopting the language of their women is simply speculation with little scientific basis. Because in any case, not only the Basque R1b men changed their language but all the historical Iberian peoples of the peninsula did it (Andalusia, Murcia, Valencia, Catalonia, Aragon, Pyrenees, large areas of Castile, Navarra, Basque Country and the south of France up to Herault, including Aquitaine and Occitania), it would be the first time in the history of mankind that conquerors did not impose their culture and language on a conquered people.
Moesan says :
Speculation to date ? Yes, agree. But no, it isn’t the first time conquerors lost their language. Look at Franks in Gaul, Bretons in Eastern Brittany (early enough, surely linked to France attraction and feudal model of alliances), Normans in Normandy, all of them leaving toponymic traces nevertheless. Very often it passes through a bilinguism or a disglossy during some centuries. Let’s notice that often, the lower civilisational level « winners », spite military dominant, loose their langage when the number is not on their side.
BTW we don’t know exactly when Iberian language was spoken at first, and where. Writings and languages are not born at the same time. Saying that some Y-R1b-P312 of Eastern Iberia at those times (even early Iron) were Iberian speakers or non I-Ean speakers is going to fast, without to speak of who teaches to whom. Society structure is at play too in the question of links between languages and ethnies: were all illegitimate sons incorporated into the elite families ? I doubt it, it would have needed fathers would have been always aware of the case ! Such inegalitarian societies has been multilingual for a while, I think. And are we sure of the « winners » identity at Iron, and the direction of linguistic changes (when we see the debates about Iberian material culture and Iberian language in Ebro valley)? Seemingly I-Ean hydronymy were in some places of Iberia even in zones known as non-I-Ean speaking later.



Post #20 @Angela :[... In the first case, because the genetic continuity in Iberia is absolutely demonstrated from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age. The uniparental markers are the same (males R1b-P312/Df27). To say that these men changed their language because of their women seems to me a simplistic and unscientific explanation. Genetic continuity is the only way to demonstrate which language a culture spoke in prehistoric times. In Iberia we are fortunate to be able to demonstrate that the Iberians/Basques and Tartessians (all of them overwhelmingly P312) did not speak Indo-European languages in the Iron Age but Iberian/Basque and Tartessian. In other words the BB culture did not speak an Indo-European language. In order to prove that IE was spoken in the steppes and that R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 brought those languages to mainland europe you need to prove the genetic continuity between the Yamnaya culture (or any other steppe culture) and the BB culture, and you know what? so far nobody has been able to prove it. When you do it then we all will have to accept that R1b-P312 (and the BB culture) spoke an IE langage...]

Moesan says :

We have very few Y-haplos in Chalco/Bronze/Iron Iberia (<20 for MBA, almost all of them R1b-P312). We know that sepultures changed in Southern cultures (eg El Argar), passing from collective ones to individual ones (with tumuli I think) in the same settlements: have we here a continuity of pop plus internal evolution only, or some new elite intruders ? Comparing Bronze to current %’s, may we think all the non-R1b haplo’s came later into Iberia ? Who believes really taht Y-R1b was the only Y-haplo in Iberia at Bronze ?
 
it could be true but you need a double situation

1-That the fathers were foreigners
2-That the mothers were local women

However, in Iberia, the first documented R1b-P312-Df27s are

*EHU002 El Hundido (2.434 BC)-- HapY-R1b-P312-Mit-K1a4/a1-BB burial-Oval pit in the corridor of a dolmen-Male+45 years, 1,85 m, fetal position in right lateral decubitus and with NO-SE orientation-Grave goods- Ciempozuelos style vessel, copper dagger, V perforated button-
*EHU001/UE 750-El Hundido (2.413 BC)-HapY-R1b-L51-Mit-U5a1/b1-

This site is in Burgos (Castilian Plateau), very close to the ancestral home of the Basques, and the first thing we have to see who are the mothers of these men. The first of them has a typical Iberian Neolithic mitochondrial marker documented in the peninsula since 5.273 BC (Cova de la Sarga, Valencia), so evidently his mother was originally from Iberia, but the second man has a U5a1b1 marker, which has never been documented in Iberia previously. Moreover, it has its origin in the Maykop culture, Russia-Marinskaya5-MK5007-3.505 BC (Wang et al, 2.018) and then has been documented in other European BB sites (Berzingerode etc...).
OK Gaska. Have you the auDNA making of these two men? (apparently BB's). And do you find 2 examples are a demonstration?
That said Ciempozuelos vessel as it seems were not older than 1900 BC. Are these datations so safe?
mt U5a1b1 origin in Maykop? Not very sure, it was I think a common mt-haplo in Steppes, its upstream forms there since long ago. But as you use it, yes, it is come from East.
 
@Gaska
- Nobody will never believe that some obscure chalcolithic minorities of the 3000’s BC, based in spots between Portugal and S-W Spain colonised genetically the whole western Europe. Culturally at least it seems that around the 3000/2500’s BC there were diverse chalcolithical pop’s in Iberia and the BB’s were not the masters, at first. Things changed only after, and how and why they changed is not so evident. Nevertheless we see around 2500 BC relatively quick autosomals changes in western Europe, with introduction of ‘steppic’ auDNA (even if unequal), all that under the BB umbrella. I know you are not the supporter of a ‘steppic’ input come from Iberia ! So we may say at least that the BB question is not so simple, and that perhaps, genetic flood and cultural one could have been dissociated, even opposed at some stage.
- Nobody may say the whole territories associated to BB culture spoke an I-Ean language. What we see is that a lot of cultures partially inherited from BB’s spoke an I-Ean language todate over a large space and before the Roman Empire (Ireland, Britain, Gaul, 3/4 f Germany, western and central parts of Iberia…). Language shift can occur more or less quickly according to several serious causes, among them a political/economical constitution of networks under the control of some strong enough groups : at its maximum, BB culture could have been a candidate. In fact, all this is speculation yet. For I know, we have no text at BA in Iberia nor elsewhere in West (except some kind of runes in Skara Brae Scotland, just before?).
- Concerning males haplo’s, BB’s of Iberia seemingly did not show an overwhelming domination of Y-R1b-P312, if I remember well and if the studies have been correct for archeology and datations. So, first BB’s and Y-R1b connection is still speculative (it spites me ; we need plenty of auDNA and haplo’s from the supposed first settlements of S-W Iberia). At the opposite, Y-R1b-P312 was the almost unique marker of other western BB’s. In Central Europe Hungary BB’s are kind of exception.
- concerning autosomals, it seems clear that between Chalco and Bronze Iberia knew introgressions from Central Europe of more remote steppic origin, Basque country as well as other places. Some time ago, you and others defended the concept of BB’s females conquering Europe, now you are putting the ‘steppic’ DNA on account of the lone steppic-like females ? It’s very easy to cite some individual isolated cases when associating Y-haplos and auDNA, you know that in isolated cases their couple can be dissociated in only 6/7 generations. But at a statistical level, it’s very evident that Y-P312 and ‘steppic’ auDNA came along westwards in Europe, and not as late as Bronze but even at Chalco. It’s evident to me that P312 began to develop at non-negligible levels around Alps or even a bit more eastern, as soon as 3000 BC.
- language drift can occur on every side, it depends on respective numbers, too : some of the BB’s groups seem small and then possibly incorporated after some time, loosing auDNA and even changing burying modes (rather by reusing older tombs than by making new ones!).
 
^^Very reasoned and subtle analysis, Moesan, with which I'm largely in agreement, but reason will never make headway against emotional beliefs. All evidence will be emphasized or discounted to make the a priori emotional conclusion true.

Some "theories" will never die because some people are too emotionally invested in them. I give you credit for taking the time to address things again and again; I'm just getting too bored and am starting to lose interest.
 
@Angela-

When people have no arguments, they prefer to resort to old clichés such as emotional beliefs, emotional conclusions, nationalism etc..... If you are really interested in finding out how things happened in Western Europe you should at least contemplate different views and value them. Never take for granted risky theories that sooner or later will be totally debunked. An example is the collapse of the Yamnaya culture as the origin of R1a-M417 and R1b-L51, which means that the whole Kurgan theory as interpreted by Harvard and Anthony is pure fantasy. You can continue to believe this fairy tale or study carefully the Chalcolithic in France and Iberia.
 
@Moesan

Yeah the BB question is not simple and Yeah we all see an autosomal change in mainland Europe with the arrival of the CWC and then the extension of this autosomal component thanks to the BBC. We also see different proportions of steppe ancestry and a great heterogeneity in the uniparental markers in those two cultures.

But what is important is that these changes

1-Were not male mediated, because there are dozens of female steppe markers in both CWC and BBC. This means that Harvard's conclusions that R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 were solely responsible for the introduction of this signal in Europe are simply a big mistake (or a big lie).

2. The genetic change was not immediate, nor a consequence of conquests or massive migrations, but a consequence of small migrations of family groups and exogamy between different cultures. The process did not last years but centuries

You have to take into account several data-

1-Bb culture lasted in Iberia more than 1,000 years (Estuario del Tajo-2,800 BC, dating of Joao Cardoso 2,014-Cultura de las Cogotas, Castilla, 1,800 BC)- However in other BBs regions, the phenomenon can be considered almost sporadic (Sicily, Poland, North Italy, North Africa, Holland, Czech Republic, Hungary).

2-Evidently the BB culture was characterized by small migratory movements of family groups that following the course of the rivers and the neolithic trade routes managed to colonize some regions of Europe. This culture could be defined as a true thalassocracy because they controlled the maritime trade of Asian African and European products (ivory, ostrich eggs, amber, salt etc.).

3-I have already said that in its first phase, the BB culture was very heterogeneous in terms of its uniparental markers and autosomal composition. Not only Iberia and Hungary, Sicilian and Northern Italian BBs have hardly any steppe ancestry, there are men with steppe ancestry (male Hap G2a) in France and Germany. There are also cases of I2a in Iberia, England and cases of H2 in Hungary, all of them buried in BB tombs with grave goods typical of that culture. After 2,500 BC things changed radically because R1b-P312 was imposed to the rest of markers. It is evident that there was a founding effect of P312 in the West (Germany, Switzerland, France and Spain), L21 in the British Isles, U152 in Central Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Czech Republic) and Df27 in Iberia. . But this process lasted hundreds of years until all the Bronze Age cultures at least in Iberia and France (from Italy we hardly have any data) were overwhelmingly R1b-P312. And when I say all, I mean all, that is, Las Cogotas culture, El Argar culture (this year a very interesting work will be published with more than 65 analyzed skeletons), Las Motillas culture, etc.

4-In a second stage (after 2,400 BC) migrations of Df27 Iberian males have already been demonstrated in Sicily (Fernandes et al), and small migrations and exogamy of Iberian females have also been demonstrated in Germany, Czechia, Hungary and Poland. That is to say, on the one hand, factories and colonies were exploited to obtain valuable and prestigious products, and on the other hand, migratory movements took place. The BB culture reached its maximum expansion in Csepel island in its eastern domain, there they stopped the Indo-European expansion.
 

This thread has been viewed 43400 times.

Back
Top